gelifts, has inferted in his Gospel an account of the commiffion, which Chrift gave unto them. ch. x. I. ... 20.

And indeed fome learned men of later times, as well as formerly, have been of opinion, that Luke was one of the Seventy.

Among thefe is our Dr. Whitby, who (b) reckoned both Mark and Luke to have been of that number.

7. A. Fabricius (c) was inclined to be of the fame opinion. And in favour of it refers to the paffages of Adamantius and Epiphanius, before taken notice of by us. This likewife was the fentiment of (d) Mr. Bafnage.

Dr. C. A. Heumann has lately published a differtation concerning Chrift's Seventy Difciples, containing many curious obfervations. And he fuppofeth, that (*) thefe feveral following were of that number. Matthias, chofen in the room of the traitor, Jofeph, called Barfabas, furnamed Juftus, and probably, the feven Deacons, or however, fome of them, and the four teachers and Prophets of Antioch, Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, whom he thinks to be our Luke the Evangelift, and Manaen. Acts xiii. 1.

His argument is to this purpofe. We have not in the Gofpels the names of thofe Difciples. Nor did Chrift form a college or companie of them, as he did of the Twelve, becaufe it was a temporarie office, which fubfifted for a fhort time only. They were but once fent forth. And when they were returned, their commiffion was at an end. Nevertheless they hereby became qualified for public fervice. And it may be reckoned very probable, that if an opportunity was afforded, they would be very willing, after Chrift's afcenfion, to exert themfelves in his caufe. And it is very likely, that fome of thefe Seventy were chofen, and employed by the Apoftles, as men, who had been already exercifed in the fervice of the gospel, and were thereby fitted for farther ufefulneffe.

So that learned writer. And it must be acknowledged, that this is a fpecious argument. But it is rather founded in an ingenious fpeculation, than in the authority of teftimonie. Which, in this cafe, would be more valuable.

Indeed Epiphanius, befide the places (e) formerly alieged, where he fays, Mark and Luke were of the Seventy, has another: where (f) he mentions a great many, who were faid to be of that number: as the feven deacons, all whom he mentions by name, and alfo Matthias, Mark, Luke, Juftus, Barnabas, Apelles, Rufus, Niger. And therefore, we can

(b) See his Preface to St. Luke's Gospel.

...

not

(c) præcipue, fi verum eft, quod legas in Origenis feu Adamantii cujufdam Dialogis adverfus Marcionitas, et Epiphanii H. LI. n. xi. Neque adeo repugnat et Lucam et Marcum ex illis fuiffe, licet Veteres miro confenfu, ut Marcum Petri, ita Lucam tradunt Pauli fuiffe interpretem et sectatorem. Haud dubie enim Apoftolorum etiam præ LXX illis magna prærogativa erat. &c. Bib. Gr. l. iv. cap. v. T. 3. p. 133.

(d) Ann. 60. num, xxviii.

(*) Differtatio de Septuaginta Chrifli Legatis. ap. Nov. Syllog. Differtat. Part.i p. 120...

.154. (e) Haer. LI. num. vi. xi.

(f) II. 20. num. iv.

not deny, that in the time of Epiphanius there were fome, who enter. tained an opinion, that all thefe were of Chrift's feventy Difciples. Nevertheless we do not find it in Irenaeus, or Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, or any others of the highest antiquity, and beft credit: nor in Eufebe or Jerome, that I remember, who were acquainted with the writings of thofe ancient authors, and many others, which are not come to us. Eufebe has a chapter concerning the Difciples of our Saviour. He fays, the names of Chrift's twelve Apofties were well known: but (g) there was no where any catalogue of the Seventy. However, he mentions Barnabas, Matthias, and the difciple put up with him, and one or two more, who were faid to be of the Seventy. But he takes not here any notice of Mark, or Luke, or of any of the feven Deacons.

Matthias and Barfabas certainly were fuch men, as are defcribed Acts . 21. 22. And they may have been of the Seventy. But we cannot be certain, because we have not been affured of it by any accounts, that demand full affent. Some of the seven Deacons may have been of the Seventy, as Stephen and Philip. But we do not know, that they were. It is very probable, that all thofe Deacons were not of the Seventy, particularly, Nicolas a profelyte, of Antioch. If Luke, the Evangelift, be the fame as Lucius, of Cyrene, there arifeth a strong objection against his having been one of the Seventy. Simeon called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. 1. and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, (of whom those two, just mentioned, were a part) were early believers, after Chrift's afcenfion, and they may have heard and feen the Lord in perfon. But they cannot be well fuppofed to have been of the Seventy. Chrift's twelve ApoAles were of Galilee. It is likely, that the Seventy also were of the fame countrey, or near it. Chrift fent them forth from him, to go over the land of Ifrael, and to return to him in a short time, where he should be. And his ufual refidence was in Galilee. It does not appear to me at all probable, that our Lord put into that commiffion any men, who were born, and ufually refided abroad, in other countreys, out of the land of Ifrael. Hitherto, then, we have not any full proof, that our Evangelift was one of the Seventy. Let us proceed.

St. Luke ch. xxiv. 13... 34. relates how two difciples met Jefus after his refurrection, as they were going to Emmaus. And he fays, that the name of one of them was Cleophas. Theophylact in his comment upon this place, as (b) formerly fhewn, obferves: "Some (i) fay, that one of thefe two was Luke himself: but that the Evangelift concealed his own name." Nicephorus Callifti (k) in one place, makes not doubt, that Luke was the other difciple not named. It is likely, that he had met with it in more ancient writers. Sam. Bafnage (1) readily declares himself of

the

(α) τῶν δὲ ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν κατάλογος μὲν ἐδῶς ἐδαμή φίζεται. Η Ε. A. 6. 12.

(b) l'ol. xi. p. 423.

(1) Τινὲς τὸν ἕνα τέτων τῶν δύο αὐτὸν τὸν λουκᾶν εἴ αἱ φασι· διὸ καὶ ἀπέκρυψε το zure aroua à luayyerish. Theoph. in Luc. cap. xxiv. f. 539.

(1) Τεῖς περὶ λεκῶν καὶ κλείπαν τήν ὁδὸν παρισι γνωρίζεται, πρὸς ἑσπέραν εἰς δείπνον αυτοῖς συγκατακλιθείς, Niceph. 1. 1. c. 34. p. 117.

() Nulla fane magis idonea ratio obfervatur animo, cur Cleopæ, non alterius, Lucas meminerit: quomodo Joannes, ubi de fe mentionem agitat,

nomen

the fame opinion. Indeed, I think, it has a great appearance of probability. It is much more likely, than the tradition, or interpretation in Epiphanius, that (m) it was Nathanael. The fame Bafnage fays that if Nathanael had been the other, St. Luke would have named him.

St. Mark ch. xvi. 12. 13. has a like account, but briefer, of two, to whom Chrift appeared, as they were walking into the countrey. He does not name either of them. Grotius (n) allows, that Mark's and Luke's hiftories are of the fame perfons. Both the Evangelifts speak of these as two of them. They were not of the Twelve, but yet they were of their companie, fuch as had been with Jefus: as is allowed by (0) Grotius, and (p) Beza. Nevertheless they fay, that (q) Luke is not the other. He is excluded, as they fay, by the tenour of his introductions both to his Gofpel, and the Acts. Their reafonings will be confidered presently.

However, fuppofing Luke to be the perfon here intended, I do not think, that he is thereby fhewn to be one of the Seventy. Clephas and the other were difciples of Chrift, and eye-witnetles. But it does not therefore follow, that they were of the number of the Seventy.

We proceed. Among the Salutations in the epiftle to the Romans are thefe. ch. xvi. 20. Timothie my work-fellow, and Lucius, and Fafon, and Sofipater, my kinfmen, falute you. All these were Jewish believers, and the three laft mentioned, as it feems, were the Apostle's relations. That by Lucius fome fuppofed the Evangelift Luke to be intended, we have been informed by fo ancient a writer as Origen. And it is very likely, that St. Luke's name was writ differently: Lucas, Lucius, and Lucanus. There is the more reason to think, that the Evangelift is here intended, because he must have been with the Apoftle at the time of writing the epiftle to the Romans. Says Mr. Tillemont: "Many (r) "believe, that St. Luke is he, whom St. Paul in his epiftle to the Romans

"calls

nomen diffimulat fuum. Si de grege Apoftolorum fuiffent, aut virorum multa laude in Evangelio celebratorum, uti Nathanael, quod Epiphanio vifum, iterum atque iterum dicenius, tam ejus quam Cleopæ nomen fœneraffet. Ang 33. num. CL.

(m) See vol. viii. p. 316.

(n) Quare immerito Enthymius hic aliam putat hiftoriam indicari, quam eam, que a Luca copiofe defcribitur. Grot, ad Marc. xvi. 12.

(0) δυσὶν ἐκ αὐτῶν] τῶν μετὰ ἰησὲ γενομένων, ut fupra dixit ver. IO Nam hoc nomine etiam alii extra xii, cenfentur, præcipue qui de numero erant illorum feptuaginta. Grot. ad Marc. xvi. 11.

(p) Ex iis, i auto, nempe difcipulis, non autem ex Apoftolis. Aliorum enim præter Apoftoles inentio facta fuit præcedente versu 9. Bez. in Luce xxiv. 13.

(9) Alterum fuiffe hunc noftrum Lucam, quidam ex veteribus arbitrantur, quorum opinio refellitur ex præfatione Actis Apoftolorum præpofita. Bas. ad Luc. xxiv. 18.

Duo ex illis, nempe eorum, quos modo hamv, ceterorum nomine defignarat, e fectatoribus Chrifti. Probabiliter fentiunt Veteres, fuiffe hos de numero LXX... Nomen alterius infra exprimit Lucas, Cleopam vocans. Alterum ipfum Lucam multi putârunt, quos fatis ipfe refellit in Evangelii anteloquio, ab occulatis teftibus fe feparans. Grot, ad Luc, xxiv. 13.

(r) Mem. Es. Tom. 2. S. Luc.

"calls Lucius, making his name a little more Latin. And it is the more "likely, inafmuch as the Acts affure us, that St. Luke was then with St. "Paul. If that be fo, he was related to this Apostle." Grotius, who fuppofed our Evangelift to have been of Antioch, taking notice of the above-mentioned obfervation of Origen, fays, that (s) Lucius, in Rom. xvi. is the fame, as Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. 1.

Fabricius (t) esteemed it somewhat probable, that Lucius is the Evangelift.

Dr. Heumann fuppofes (u) this Lucius to be St. Luke, and the fame as Lucius of Cyrene, whom (x) he computes to be one of the seventy Difciples, as before seen.

Mr. Bafnage likewife argues very strongly, that (y) Lucius is our Evangelist.

Indeed this opinion cannot be well faid to be deftitute of probability: fince there is a good deal of reason to think, that Luke was in the Apoftle's companie, when he wrote the epiftle to the Romans. And if Lucius be not he, no mention is made of him. Which is very unlikely.

If this be our Evangelift, we hence learn, that he was a Jew, and related to the Apoftle. And if this be Lucius of Cyrene, we know his character, and, in part, his hiftorie, from Acts xi. 19.. 21. and xiii. 1. . . 4. He was an early Jewish believer after Chrift's afcenfion, and toge ther with others was very ferviceable in early preaching the gofpel to Jews and Gentils out of Judea. And, once more, if the other, who accompanied

(s) Docet nos Origenes, in annotationibus epiftolæ ad Romanos, fuiffe qui crederent Lucium eum, qui in eadem epiftola nominatur. xvi. 21. effe hunc ipfum Lucam, et Lucium dici flexione Romana, Lucam Græca. Ego Lucium illum, cujus ibi meminit Paulus, puto non alium effe a Cyrenenfi, quem nofter hic nominat Actor. xiii. 1. Grot. Praf. ad Evang.

S. Luc.

(1) Fuerunt enim jam olim, qui tefte Origene Lucam eundem putârunt cum Lucio, quem Paulus inter ovyysve; fuos refert Rom. xvi. 21. Neque verifimilitudine deftituitur hæc fententia. Fab. Bib. Gr. ubi fupra. p. 132.

(z) Lucas non eft verum, id eft, pure expreffum nomen Evangelifta, fed vel Lucanus, (quem in modum ut ex Silvanus factum eft Silas) vel Lucius. Ac perverifimile eft, Evangeliftam noftrum effe Lucium illum Cyrenæum, cujus fit mentio A&t. xiii. 1. Quem nec diverfum effe credo ab illo Lucio, quem Paulus Rom. xvi. 21. vocat cognatum fuum, fimulque teftatur, eum in fuo comitatu fuiffe. Heuman. Ep. Misc. T. 2. p. 519.

(x) Jure igitur credimus, et hos quatuor [Act. xiii. 1.] fuiffe e feptuaginta illorum difcipulorum numero. Jam inter hos fi Lucius non eft alius quam Lucas Evangelifta, merito et Lucam noftrum recenfemus inter feptuaginta illos difcipulos. Diff. de Lxx. Chrifti Legat. § xx. p. 149.

(y) Lucam Evangeliftam Paulo confanguineum fuiffe verifimilitudinis multum habet. Lucium fane, cujus nomine Romanos falutat Apoftolus, ex ipfius cognatis unus erat. Sunt vero non pertenues conjecturæ, quibus adducamur ad exiftimandum unum eundemque virum cum Luca Lucium effe. Quæ antiqua fane fententia fuit, cujus meminit Origenes in Rom. xvi. . . . Silam quidem Paulus ipfe Silvanum vocat. Aderat etiam Paulo comes Lucas, cum miffa eft ad Romanos epiftola, quem infalutatos præteriiffe, prorfus fit incredible: quod tamen factum fuiffet, fi Lucius eft a Luca diverfus. Bafn. ann. 60. n. xxxiii. 5

companied Cleophas in the way to Emmaus, be Luke the Evangelift, he was a disciple and eye-witnesse of Jesus Christ. But I do not lay, one of the Seventy.

Now we come to confider the objection of Beza, Grotius, and divers others who have fuppofed, that St. Luke, in the introduction to his Gofpel, excludes himself from the number of eye-witneffes. But though this has been a difficulty with many, there have been of late divers learned men, remarkable for inquifitiveneffe, and good judgement, who are not much moved by it. One of them is Dr. Whitby, in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel, already taken notice of by us. Another (z) Fabricius, a third (a) Bafnage, the fourth Heumann: who in his forecited Differtation obferves, that (b) St. Luke's introduction imports no more, than that he was not an eye-witnefle from the beginning, nor an Apostle. But he may have been for fome while a follower of Chrift very confiftently with what he there writes. And, probably, he was fo. But he very fitly puts the credit and authority of his hiftorie upon the teftimonie of the Apostles.

authority

I fhall likewife tranfcribe below a paffage of Petavius (c) from his

Animad

(z) Neque obftat porro, quod Lucas affirmat, fe ea fcribere, quæ acceperit ab illis, qui fuiffent àï' ¿gxns avτóra. Nam non de omnibus LXX dici hoc poterat, quod Act. i. 21. et feq. ad Apoftolum requiritur. Bib. Gr. T. 3.

P. 133.

(a) Ann. 60. num. xxviii.

a

(b) Repugnare quidem videri poffit ipfe Lucas cap. . 2. fcribens, fe quæ tradat accepiffe α τοῖς ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αυτόπταις. Verum non fe negat fuiffe αυτόπτην, qui negat, fe dvi ddex fuiffe. Concedimus itaque, non ab initio ftatim, uti Apoftolos, quos ingeras T8 óys appellat, interfuiffe rebus a Chrifto geftis Lucam. Sed aliquo jam tempore functo fuo munere Meffiæ fe applicuiffe Lucam, et poftea femper in ejus comitatu fuiffe, quo minus credamus, hoc ipfius teftimonium minime impedit. Accedit, quod modeftiæ erat, Apoftolorum potius, quam fuum ipfius teftimonium commendare, jubereque lectores, fi forte fibi credituri fint ægrius, fidem habere Apoftolis, teftibus nulli obnoxiis exceptioni. Heum. Diff. ib. num, xx.

(c) Quod Lucas & difcipulorum numero fuerit, afferit. et Dorotheus in Synopfi... Sed contra fentiunt plerique, et id ex ipfis Lucæ verbis colligunt, cum ait: 'Edo xapò. . Sed tantum abeft, ut hæc difcipulum Chrifti fuifle, ac non pleraque, cum ab eo gererentur, oculis ufurpaffe negent, ut contrarium potius hinc elici poffit. Verbum enim aga nonnunquam ad eam no

titiam refertur, quæ oculis ipfis, ac propria intelligentia comparatur, non aliorum fermonibus. Ut cum Demofthenes Twigi waçanęsobelas, de Æfchine, cujus in legatione comes fuerat, fic loquitur: Kai i TáTY wangivμatx είδώς, καὶ παρακολυθηκὼς ἅπασι κατηγορῶ. Sic igitur Lucas ἄνωθεν παρηκολο Erxivas arãow angles dicitur, hoc eft, comperta, explorataque, ac fpectata etiam, habuiffe. Ac videri poteft, et nonnulla hæc antithefis effe, ut cum fuperiore verfu dixerit: Quemadmodum multi res a Chrifto geftas fcribere aggreffi funt, καθὼς παρέλασαν ἡμῖν δι ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ftatim fubjiciat : Εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκότι, hoc eft, qui non, ut illi ix agadóows, fed ex propria id fcientia compererim. Ceterum tametfi ad eum fenfum accommodari Lucæ verba nihil prohibet, non idcirco tamen Chrifti difcipulum fuiffe certo pronunciare aufim: cum huic adverfari fententiæ longe plures Patres intelligam.. Sed ifta commemoravi, ut ne Lucæ ipfi de fe teftanti refragari quifquam Epiphanium arbitretur. Petav. Animadv. in Epiphan. Hær. 11. num. xi. p. 89. 90.